Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 13 topics

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon D90 video as it relates to lens width / angle
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/54606969be2ffe97?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 9 2009 11:52 pm
From: ASAAR

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:07:01 -0800, Paul Furman wrote:

> Easier yet, get a used Canon 5D (full frame) and a Sigma 12-24 so you
> can compose naturally. That's equivalent to an 8mm lens on the D90 - as
> wide as you would ever want. D700 or 5DII if budget allows.

When you can get Sigma's 10-20mm lens for the D90 instead, the 2mm
difference would have to *really* be needed to justify getting a
Canon 5D in addition to the 12-24 lens. Getting the 10-20mm lens
for the D90 would be *much* easier on the wallet. Also, while these
cameras all have video modes, the 5D and D700 don't shoot videos!

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 2:26 am
From: "Destin_FL"

thanks everyone!!
I so appreciate everyone's willingness to help.

About the 'video-then-grabbing-screenshots' ..... I would be using the
actual video, not grabbing screenshots from video. So for instance in a
presentation of a property, I would build a video that included both stills
and actual video footage put together in Premiere Elements or Cyberlink or
Pinnacle or whatever.

____________

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:7nb2p41sa7nuh14cjdhsv3j975eldtcle4@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:07:01 -0800, Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> Easier yet, get a used Canon 5D (full frame) and a Sigma 12-24 so you
>> can compose naturally. That's equivalent to an 8mm lens on the D90 - as
>> wide as you would ever want. D700 or 5DII if budget allows.
>
> When you can get Sigma's 10-20mm lens for the D90 instead, the 2mm
> difference would have to *really* be needed to justify getting a
> Canon 5D in addition to the 12-24 lens. Getting the 10-20mm lens
> for the D90 would be *much* easier on the wallet. Also, while these
> cameras all have video modes, the 5D and D700 don't shoot videos!
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: New online photo gallery
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/be0728653b29ce60?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 12:52 am
From: Skipper

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 16:47:07 +0000, HEMI-Powered wrote
(in article <Xns9BAD77E279DF3ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30>):

> his is the THIRD time you've spammed this NG with your self-serving
> bullshit. go away!

Agreed. I have already made my views known. It is now time for the Kill File.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: gizmo
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/269071f0b8cf3292?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 1:10 am
From: Ron Hunter

tony cooper wrote:
> At the Mt Dora Art Festival this past weekend, a guy had this set-up
> to mechanically record some sort of panoramic view of the crowds
> (estimated attendance 250,000 to 300,00):
>
> http://tonycooper.fileave.com/camera.jpg
>
> He had it set up on the top of some steps to a building where it could
> shoot the crowds at the center of the festival. He said it would
> take 8 or 9 hours to download the images, but I forgot to ask how the
> images are stored.
>
> This isn't my type of thing, so it may be old hat to everyone else
> here. I'm posting it because I thought the gear-heads might be
> interested.
>

I would think it was a wide-angle (fisheye) lens equipped camera with a
timer to click one picture each second, and enough storage for the
duration of the Festival, or a direct link of an HD.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 3:54 am
From: "Glen"

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:82u1p41trp6dpjvq8shgja2uajch88hl9v@4ax.com...

> At the Mt Dora Art Festival this past weekend, a guy had this set-up
> to mechanically record some sort of panoramic view of the crowds
> (estimated attendance 250,000 to 300,00):
>
> http://tonycooper.fileave.com/camera.jpg
>
> He had it set up on the top of some steps to a building where it could
> shoot the crowds at the center of the festival. He said it would
> take 8 or 9 hours to download the images, but I forgot to ask how the
> images are stored.
>
> This isn't my type of thing, so it may be old hat to everyone else
> here. I'm posting it because I thought the gear-heads might be
> interested.

This technology has also recently been in the media because of a panorama
taken using a Gigapan Epic @ the Obama Inauguration. Details here:
http://www.davidbergman.net/blog/2009/01/28/inauguration-gigapan-prints-now-available/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why So Many "RAW" Formats?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c643b94093fa7617?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 1:13 am
From: Chris H

In message <h03kl.5094$Kr1.284@newsfe13.iad>, Bob Williams
<mytbobnospam@cox.net> writes
>Chris H wrote:
>> In message <zFRjl.5129$_A2.1107@newsfe22.iad>, Bob Williams
>><mytbobnospam@cox.net> writes
>Do you think that anyone could really tell the difference between three
>8x10 prints of the same subject, taken under the same
>conditions.....One each taken with say a 10 MP Canon, Nikon or Sony
>DSLR?

How about a 2mp DX camera and a 25 MP FX camera with different
resolutions using different sensors and processing tecnology ? This is
why the formats differ.

The final picture will depend on what you do with the data in RAW
processing and photoshop. However much of it will depend on the amount
of data you have to play with at the start.

The final outcome of a 10MP Canon, Sony and Nikon may well be similar
but the sensors and process in the camera will be different hence the
different RAW formats.

As they all supply FREE RAW convertors to users and SDK's to the
industry I can't see the problem.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 5:13 am
From: TheRealSteve

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:34:10 -0900, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On 2009-02-09 17:30:14 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
>>
>>> ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:30:15 -0800, Matt Ion wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Williams wrote:
>>>>>> Seems like every Camera manufacturer has one or more of his own
>>>>>> versions of a RAW image format. And many (most?) versions are
>>>>>> proprietary.
>>>>> RAW, by its very definition, is not an "image
>>>>> format" but simply the raw
>>>>> data straight off the camera sensor. Thus any change in the sensor -
>>>>> including going to a higher resolution - results in a different RAW
>>>>> output.
>>>> raw data files, as any other files, have a format.
>>> But it is not an "image format".
>>
>>Sure it is. It stores an image. There is no intrinsic difference
>>between a RAW file and any other image format -- it is all 1s and 0s
>>storing an image. In fact, Nikon calls the NEF files an "image format"
>>and compares them to JPG and TIFF.
>
>Nikon Electronic Format is *not* a raw image format.
>Nikon often refers to "NEF raw image data", but near as
>I can tell they never call NEF a "raw image format".
>That is true because, if for no other reason, NEF is
>used for many very different types of raw data.
>
>And there *is* an intrinsic difference between a data
>file that contains raw sensor data and an image file
>which contains the data for one specific image. The raw
>data file *must* be interpolated to produce an image,
>and there is no one single way to do that, which means a
>raw data file's data can be interpolated many different
>ways. It is not data for one image, but rather data
>from which an infinite number of very different images
>can be made.

By your definition, there is no such thing as an image file. Even
jpegs will look very different on each monitor they're displayed on or
on each printer they're printed on. That's because processing,
including interpolation among other processing, *must* be done to a
jpeg in order to produce an image you can see on any specific medium
and there is no single way to do that, which means a jpeg file's data
can be interpolated many different ways.

In fact, a raw file is even more an image file format than a jpeg file
because it is an actual photograph, i.e., a recording of photons that
struck a specific area over a specific time. Once you start messing
with that via whatever processing you choose, you're getting further
and further away from a photograph although it's still an image.

Also by your definition, a film negative is not an image because it
must be printed to create an image and there's an infinite number of
ways any single negative can be printed. But I contend that a film
negative *is* an image format, just like a raw file.

Steve

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 5:52 am
From: "Glen"

"TheRealSteve" <steve@example.com> wrote in message
news:rmu2p417utnlvgl1oja6kqfh3k5sn72udk@4ax.com...

>>>>>>> Seems like every Camera manufacturer has one or more of his own
>>>>>>> versions of a RAW image format. And many (most?) versions are
>>>>>>> proprietary.
>>>>>> RAW, by its very definition, is not an "image
>>>>>> format" but simply the raw
>>>>>> data straight off the camera sensor. Thus any change in the sensor -
>>>>>> including going to a higher resolution - results in a different RAW
>>>>>> output.
>>>>> raw data files, as any other files, have a format.
>>>> But it is not an "image format".
>>>
>>>Sure it is. It stores an image. There is no intrinsic difference
>>>between a RAW file and any other image format -- it is all 1s and 0s
>>>storing an image. In fact, Nikon calls the NEF files an "image format"
>>>and compares them to JPG and TIFF.
>>
>>Nikon Electronic Format is *not* a raw image format.
>>Nikon often refers to "NEF raw image data", but near as
>>I can tell they never call NEF a "raw image format".
>>That is true because, if for no other reason, NEF is
>>used for many very different types of raw data.
>>
>>And there *is* an intrinsic difference between a data
>>file that contains raw sensor data and an image file
>>which contains the data for one specific image. The raw
>>data file *must* be interpolated to produce an image,
>>and there is no one single way to do that, which means a
>>raw data file's data can be interpolated many different
>>ways. It is not data for one image, but rather data
>>from which an infinite number of very different images
>>can be made.
>
> By your definition, there is no such thing as an image file. Even
> jpegs will look very different on each monitor they're displayed on or
> on each printer they're printed on. That's because processing,
> including interpolation among other processing, *must* be done to a
> jpeg in order to produce an image you can see on any specific medium
> and there is no single way to do that, which means a jpeg file's data
> can be interpolated many different ways.
>
> In fact, a raw file is even more an image file format than a jpeg file
> because it is an actual photograph, i.e., a recording of photons that
> struck a specific area over a specific time. Once you start messing
> with that via whatever processing you choose, you're getting further
> and further away from a photograph although it's still an image.
>
> Also by your definition, a film negative is not an image because it
> must be printed to create an image and there's an infinite number of
> ways any single negative can be printed. But I contend that a film
> negative *is* an image format, just like a raw file.

It's not important, but how I understand it is that a RAW file is different
to a TIFF, JPEG, etc. There can be some confusion though because Nikon
offer *.NEF format for scanned images from their scanners too, but a *.NEF
from a film scanner is not the same as a *.NEF from a digital camera.

*.NEF files from a scanner are more like TIFF's. You can also convert
TIFF's and JPEG's to DNG RAW format (which, although controversial, I do
myself for all originals), but they will never truly be RAW images because
they have already gone through the demosiacing process.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 6:05 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

TheRealSteve <steve@example.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:34:10 -0900, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 2009-02-09 17:30:14 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
>>>
>>>> ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:30:15 -0800, Matt Ion wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Williams wrote:
>>>>>>> Seems like every Camera manufacturer has one or more of his own
>>>>>>> versions of a RAW image format. And many (most?) versions are
>>>>>>> proprietary.
>>>>>> RAW, by its very definition, is not an "image
>>>>>> format" but simply the raw
>>>>>> data straight off the camera sensor. Thus any change in the sensor -
>>>>>> including going to a higher resolution - results in a different RAW
>>>>>> output.
>>>>> raw data files, as any other files, have a format.
>>>> But it is not an "image format".
>>>
>>>Sure it is. It stores an image. There is no intrinsic difference
>>>between a RAW file and any other image format -- it is all 1s and 0s
>>>storing an image. In fact, Nikon calls the NEF files an "image format"
>>>and compares them to JPG and TIFF.
>>
>>Nikon Electronic Format is *not* a raw image format.
>>Nikon often refers to "NEF raw image data", but near as
>>I can tell they never call NEF a "raw image format".
>>That is true because, if for no other reason, NEF is
>>used for many very different types of raw data.
>>
>>And there *is* an intrinsic difference between a data
>>file that contains raw sensor data and an image file
>>which contains the data for one specific image. The raw
>>data file *must* be interpolated to produce an image,
>>and there is no one single way to do that, which means a
>>raw data file's data can be interpolated many different
>>ways. It is not data for one image, but rather data
>>from which an infinite number of very different images
>>can be made.
>
>By your definition, there is no such thing as an image file. Even
>jpegs will look very different on each monitor they're displayed on or

That has nothing to do with it. A JPEG format image
defines just one image. It might well display
differently, and it can also be edited... but it is
still just one image. There is no single image defined
by the raw data from a DSLR sensor. It is a set of data
that defines many images, not just one. And there are
many ways to get an image from the data too.

>on each printer they're printed on. That's because processing,
>including interpolation among other processing, *must* be done to a
>jpeg in order to produce an image you can see on any specific medium

There is no interpolation necessary with a JPEG image.
And the processing to convert a JPEG image to some other
format is well defined to produce a *single specific*
image. Granted that it might no always actually produce
exactly the same image, but the difference is an *error*!

>and there is no single way to do that, which means a jpeg file's data
>can be interpolated many different ways.

False. JPEG data is not interpolated.

Each pixel in a JPEG is encoded into a single set of RGB
color values. That data is not used for multiple pixels
except within blocks of identical pixels.

Raw sensor data is not a one to one relationship with
image pixels. The value eventually calculated for any
single pixel location is *interpolated* from multiple
sensor locations (and multiple pixels, each of which
might be different, use data from any single sensor
location).

>In fact, a raw file is even more an image file format than a jpeg file
>because it is an actual photograph, i.e., a recording of photons that
>struck a specific area over a specific time. Once you start messing
>with that via whatever processing you choose, you're getting further
>and further away from a photograph although it's still an image.

That is silliness.

>Also by your definition, a film negative is not an image because it
>must be printed to create an image and there's an infinite number of
>ways any single negative can be printed. But I contend that a film
>negative *is* an image format, just like a raw file.

Correct, a film negative is an image.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 6:18 am
From: "J. Clarke"

TheRealSteve wrote:

<snip>

> Also by your definition, a film negative is not an image because it
> must be printed to create an image and there's an infinite number of
> ways any single negative can be printed.

Lemme guess--you're a digital guy who has never actually seen a
negative.

The negative most assuredly is an image. It's a negative image but
it's an image--you can look at it and easily identify the object being
photographed.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 7:54 am
From: Pat

On Feb 9, 3:18 am, Bob Williams <mytbobnos...@cox.net> wrote:
> Seems like every Camera manufacturer has one or more of his own versions
> of a RAW image format. And many (most?) versions are proprietary.
> Nikon even encrypts some of its RAW files to discourage 3rd parties
> from developing "converters" to change the raw file to a more
> conventional and useful format like tiff, jpeg, etc.
> Considering that Adobe and many other 3rd parties can successfully
> convert the RAW files, why all the secrecy and annoyance of having so
> many different incompatible RAW formats.
> The difference in final results can't be all that significant....Can it?
> What's the chances of a single, industry-standard RAW-Type format?
> Suppose every manufacturer used a non-standard type of jpeg format.....
> Where would we be? ......Your Thoughts.
> Bob Williams

There are numerous RAW formats to ensure that, in the long run, your
images will become obsolete and increasing difficult to process. The
same is probably true for JPG but JPG will likely stand the test of
time because there are just so many freaking images out there. So in
a few years, you will be able to use a 25 year old JPG image but you
might find it difficult to use a 25 year old RAW image because it
won't be supported. If they introduce 5 new RAW formats a year for
the next 25 years, there will be 125 new formats that are used
relatively infrequently. There will only be 1 JPG format that will be
used all the time.

Of course the flip side of it is that in 25 years people will be
cursing the "antique" JPG format because it is so limiting -- it won't
be doing 3-D or holograms or whatever the new thing will be.

Funny how technology keeps marching on.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Maximum size SD card for my camera?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5210f5a494924fb2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 2:10 am
From: Daguerreotype type

On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 08:10:46 -0500, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:

>....
>I've never had a card go bad.

I'm glad to hear it. I'm reading that the cards last a good long
while, it seems. I was remembering when this technology was new and
less featured.

> I still prefer to swap out smaller
>cards (4 gig) because, if I would step on the card or otherwise
>destroy the card, I'd lose one-half, one-third, or one-fourth of my
>images and not all of them.

I only had a collection of 1 GB SD cards. I could fill them up too
often.

>This "all the time"... How frequently would you fill a 4 gig or even
>a 1 gig card before uploading the contents? How many shots do you
>take in a day?

As I said, I'm not even an amateur photographer. I know that I need to
take a bunch of shots in order to get something that might look decent
even to my eye once I get it back on the computer. I have filled up a
1 GB card on occasion.

After hearing about the capacity of my camera on this ng I went and
bought a Kingston 8 GB SDHC for it. I'll keep a 1 GB in the case to
back up if I ever get that one filled up.

>If you are not a professional, and not on a cruise or something where
>you shoot several days without uploading, are you really going to have
>to swap out "all the time"?

Well, too often and sometimes inconveniently.

>I don't think it's wrong to use large capacity cards, but I am curious
>about the reasoning used.

Part of the reasoning may be that I'm lazy and prefer to just shoot
and not worry about having to swap out the card because I've filled it
up. I am unlikely to fill up that 8 GB SDHC while I'm out. It's just
one less thing I'll feel the need to worry about.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 2:13 am
From: Daguerreotype type

On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 08:49:15 -0500, cbj0129@bellsouth.net wrote:

>Daguerreotype type wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:08:49 -0000, "Focus" <not@nowhere.pt> wrote:
>>> ....
>>> Shooting with one big card is just plain dumb; you're testing (tempting) the
>>> odds.
>>
>....
>>
>> Could people tell me how often they've personally had a SD or SDHC
>> cards fail on their own, as opposed to getting lost or stepped on or
>> something?
>
>I have never had a card "fail". I probably have a dozen or more of
>various sized cards. I have had occasional corruption and instances
>where the write protect switch fell out.

Yeah, what can you do if that falls out? I've had them accidentally
switch on as I put them into the computer. If one fell out and locked
the card in a read-only condition I'd be so annoyed.

>....
>If your camera also shoots video, use the largest card you can afford.

It will shoot video. And maybe I'll shoot some now.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: G10 memory battery internal?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/43d6d5f542774717?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 2:22 am
From: Daguerreotype type

On 2 Feb 2009 20:27:55 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>Daguerreotype type <nospam@no.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 20:34:58 +0000, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1>
>> wrote:
>>>....
>>>A capacitor should outlast the camera, but will only maintain clock and
>>>settings for a short period whilst the main battery is replaced, a
>>>Lytham cell could run the clock for ten or more years, which might well
>>>outlast the camera of you use it a lot.
>
>> Lithium-ion batteries last about five years. After that they're
>> basically shot.
>
>In which case I guess there must be something wrong with the seven
>year old Li-ion battery I'm still using, which has about 2/3 of its
>new capacity.

Lucky you. YMMV. But 5 years is the quote I've gotten from those who
watch that industry.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cool new photography website
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/08c02ba0d220a98d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 3:27 am
From: Cynicor

Ray Fischer wrote:
> HEMI-Powered <none@none.sn> wrote:
>> Cynicor added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>>
>>>> I can't recall the last time I saw a DOT repair person. There
>>>> have been NO new Federal highways in my state for decades and
>>>> maintenence of existing roads is the responsibility of the
>>>> state or local governments. But, you are clearly picking fly
>>>> shit off the back of gnats if your assertion is that government
>>>> is an efficient or effective employer of people OR an entity
>>>> that spends YOUR money wisely.
>>> So the government IS creating jobs fixing up roads.
>> Read my comment again, you missed the point entirely.
>>
>>> I am specifically addressing the hilarious statement that the
>>> government has never created a job.
>>>
>> The hilarious part is that under the Obama plan, Federal
>> BUREAUCRACIES will increase employment by some 400,000, BUT those
>> people will SAP YOUR lifeblood and NOT fix the economy because NO
>> government can PRODUCE anything,
>
> You're full of shit.

I think we should all be worried about how water fluoridation is sapping
our purity of essence.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 6:20 am
From: George Kerby

On 2/9/09 9:36 PM, in article 4990f650$0$1581$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net, "Ray
Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:

> HEMI-Powered <none@none.sn> wrote:
>> Cynicor added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>>
>>>> I can't recall the last time I saw a DOT repair person. There
>>>> have been NO new Federal highways in my state for decades and
>>>> maintenence of existing roads is the responsibility of the
>>>> state or local governments. But, you are clearly picking fly
>>>> shit off the back of gnats if your assertion is that government
>>>> is an efficient or effective employer of people OR an entity
>>>> that spends YOUR money wisely.
>>>
>>> So the government IS creating jobs fixing up roads.
>>
>> Read my comment again, you missed the point entirely.
>>
>>> I am specifically addressing the hilarious statement that the
>>> government has never created a job.
>>>
>> The hilarious part is that under the Obama plan, Federal
>> BUREAUCRACIES will increase employment by some 400,000, BUT those
>> people will SAP YOUR lifeblood and NOT fix the economy because NO
>> government can PRODUCE anything,
>
> You're full of shit.
>
Are we having trouble communicating your feelings, Fish-Head?

Awwwwww!

I have an idea: Bring out your Inner Child and beat the living crap out of
it!!!

There.

Feel better?

I thought so...

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 6:23 am
From: George Kerby

On 2/10/09 5:27 AM, in article 499164a5$0$10205$607ed4bc@cv.net, "Cynicor"
<truuupin@opt.i.m.um.net> wrote:

> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> HEMI-Powered <none@none.sn> wrote:
>>> Cynicor added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>>>
>>>>> I can't recall the last time I saw a DOT repair person. There
>>>>> have been NO new Federal highways in my state for decades and
>>>>> maintenence of existing roads is the responsibility of the
>>>>> state or local governments. But, you are clearly picking fly
>>>>> shit off the back of gnats if your assertion is that government
>>>>> is an efficient or effective employer of people OR an entity
>>>>> that spends YOUR money wisely.
>>>> So the government IS creating jobs fixing up roads.
>>> Read my comment again, you missed the point entirely.
>>>
>>>> I am specifically addressing the hilarious statement that the
>>>> government has never created a job.
>>>>
>>> The hilarious part is that under the Obama plan, Federal
>>> BUREAUCRACIES will increase employment by some 400,000, BUT those
>>> people will SAP YOUR lifeblood and NOT fix the economy because NO
>>> government can PRODUCE anything,
>>
>> You're full of shit.
>
> I think we should all be worried about how water fluoridation is sapping
> our purity of essence.
Fish-Rot also likes the Führer.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: frigging Intervalometer settings
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c8d8fae31394cbab?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 5:25 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Marty Fremen" <Marty@fremen.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9BAB1320ADFAC9A6@212.23.3.119...
> "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
>> I used this setting on my canon S70, but have heard they dropped this
>> function on the G series,
>> is there any way of achieving this type of function on a G9 or G10
>> perhaps CHDK on the G9 but I don;t think you can do that with the G10,
>> or are there any other ways of getting this type of functionality,
>
> Simplest (but not cheapest) way is to replace your Canon G10 with a
> Ricoh GX200... similar capabilities only with an intervalometer thrown
> in.

Not too keen on the Ricoh GX200, limited zoom and I've heard the
image quality isn't up to the canons, I considered the Panasonic but that
too a
had limited zoom.
Now considering building my own intervalometer.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Now he went and did it....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/65ca924332e76a06?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 5:31 am
From: "bowzer"

"Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:k-6dndVH5t9yJxXUnZ2dnUVZ_uKWnZ2d@giganews.com...
>I feared this. Bringing high-end audio into a discussion about cameras.
> This opens up the flood gates for every scientifically-illiterate kook
> imaginable. Are we going to see "Shakti Stones" sitting on top of
> platforms mounted on hotshoes now? Or argue about the merits of using 6-
> nines copper in USB cables used for image file transfers? Or lament the
> lack of good quality polystyrene capacitors in the electronics of DSLRs??
> Just because some can't properly quantify what they are seeing is no
> reason
> to bring voodoo into photographic equipment realm.
> There is no subjectivity concerning image quality. Resolution, sharpness,
> colour rendition, noise control, tonality, dynamic range and control of
> aberrations, that is it.
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml

Not to worry, after reading some of his more recent essays regarding
hardware, I've totally lost faith in that site and Reichman. Examples: the
Leica M8, a camera that was seriously flawed, but he loved it. The Canon
G10, a camera with good image quality that he compared to a Hassy digital
(yes, really). He seems to shoot from the hip, provide little, if any
backup, and totally overlook the obvious most of the time. I like him for
technique, but find him useless for anything related to the evaluation of
gear.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 5:37 am
From: "bowzer"

"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gmcdtp$84j$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml
>
> It appears to be an excellent and balanced article to me, which
> argues (correctly, I think) that quality evaluations made only "by
> the numbers" will often arrive at erroneous conclusions. Even if
> the numbers are correct, an evaluation consists of a weighting
> of the relative values of the many characteristics that are a part
> of the whole, and this weighting itself is subjective. Long ago
> (1995), I began my "SUBJECTIVE Lens Evaluations (Mostly
> Nikkors)", at -- http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html,
> and I state in the material preceding the charts and each group
> of lens type what my standards are (which would likely be different
> from those used by others, but they produce relative quality
> values which correlate well for me with how lenses perform for
> the way I use them - but others may well agree or disagree with
> my judgments). Image quality is VERY subjective, but as you
> point out, that realization can encourage the "nutty fringe" to get
> somewhat carried away. I'm an audio nut, but my interconnect
> wires are cheap RS ones (I figure that if they can carry TV signals,
> then audio signals should be easy...;-), but I know why my speaker
> cables are heavy-gauge (but cheap...;-), and I don't bother with
> gold connectors. And, I once had to violently suppress laughing
> when someone I know who seriously advised me to put bricks
> on top of my amplifiers for better sound(!!!), so I know what
> you mean in terms of subjectivity potentially going too far astray...
> --DR

Bricks? Seriously? I hate to ask, but what was that theory?

And yes, any 12 guage multi-stranded copper wire is fine. You don't need
welding cable to drive speakers. I read a story once about Fabio (the
Italian model) and his audio system, which costs over $100K. He spend nearly
$15K on cables alone. Haven't stopped laughing over that one yet.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 7:26 am
From: Bruce

"bowzer" <its@bowzah.ukme> wrote:
>
>Not to worry, after reading some of his more recent essays regarding
>hardware, I've totally lost faith in that site and Reichman. Examples: the
>Leica M8, a camera that was seriously flawed, but he loved it. The Canon
>G10, a camera with good image quality that he compared to a Hassy digital
>(yes, really). He seems to shoot from the hip, provide little, if any
>backup, and totally overlook the obvious most of the time. I like him for
>technique, but find him useless for anything related to the evaluation of
>gear.

Reichmann had it completely wrong from the start. He set up the
"Ludicrous Landscape" web site on the basis that digital was better than
35mm film, even when digital cameras had only around one million pixel
sensors. His objectivity was non-existent then, and that's why no-one
should take him seriously now.

Reichmann is adored by Leicaphiles for saying that the fundamentally
flawed and ridiculously expensive Leica M8 is a serious photographic
tool, when it is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike - unless
of course you have invested a few thousand bucks in one or two Leica M
lenses and absolutely must use digital capture. He gives a certain
class of pretentious people a warm feeling about their photography and
don't they just love him for it? Unfortunately, "Ludicrous Landscape"
has no relevance to real world people doing real world photography.

He's not alone. There are other "reviewers" whose appeal to certain
user groups is based on valuing sycophancy over objective analysis. For
example, there is Ken Rockwell, whose web site is a redneck version of
the "Ludicrous Landscape" aimed at Nikon lovers, and of course DPReview,
the objectivity of whose reviews is never in question as long as Canon
gear gets a "Highly Recommended" rating, regardless of its real world
performance ...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Abstract paintings of Will Dockery
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/eb3e469fc2f0a98e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 5:36 am
From: Will Dockery

"msifg" <gime...@cox.net> wrote:
>"Will Dockery" wrote:
>
> >> I've posted a new gallery of some of my recent abstract paintings,
> > which
> >> some of you may have an interest in checking out, for whichever reasons you prefer.
>
> >> These paintings are made with a variety of materials from oil,
> > watercolor
> >> and pastel paints, to housepaint, solvents and melted plastics:
>
> >> http://www.fototime.com/inv/E917106F136751F

> > Barfield's art almost got me arrested a few years ago, a nosy peeping tom
> > thought I had "dead bodies" stashed in the backroom:
>
> > ----
> > Columbus Ledger-Enquirer (GA)
> > July 13, 1997
> > Section: LOCAL
> > Edition: FIRST
> > Page: B1
>
> > HOW GROSS THY ART
> > Tim Chitwood
>
> > Apparently it was all just a big misunderstanding.
>
> > The misunderstanding led to a 911 call about a decomposing body in an old
> > house M***** S*****'s husband R****** owns at 2113 **th St. in Columbus.
> > That led to the discovery that it wasn't a body after all, but artwork
> > made
> > of barbed wire and blowtorched Barbie dolls. But it sure looked like a
> > body
> > to police. And it looked like a body to paramedics. And it definitely
> > looked like a body to Danny W****.
>
> > Danny is a real estate agent who with M***** went to look at the house
> > July 2. He wanted to buy it and fix it up. It needs fixing up. The roof leaks in
> > places and some of the floor's rotting. The S**** now live on F**** Drive
> > and use the **th Street house for storage. M*****'s son Will Dockery lets
> > friends -- artists, poets and madmen, Will says -- store their work there.
>
> > Among those artists is Dan Barfield, who has a concept piece called
> > "Vietnam,'' part of which the veteran made of melted Barbie dolls. ("He
> > hates Barbies,'' says his wife Judy.) It now lies on the floor among other
> > stuff stored in the dark, northwest bedroom of the ##th Street house. To
> > someone who didn't know what it was, it might look like a rib cage and sternum atop decayed matter.
>
> > That's what it looked like to Danny W**** when he walked into that musty
> > room, first staring up at the rafters. Then he looked down. Then he froze. Then he ran.
>
> > He wasn't sure what he saw. Maybe a body. Maybe it was sealed with wax,
> > which trapped the odor. Maybe this was a bizarre ritual. Maybe he didn't
> > want to know.
>
> > M***** followed Danny as he dashed outside, where he tried to make a call on
> > his cell phone. She told him not to. According to her, she told him he'd
> > just seen some artwork. According to Danny, she never said that; she just said they didn't need the police coming there.
>
> > This did not sound reassuring. Danny had to make that call. Now don't call
> > the police, M***** said again. She says she also told Danny her son Will
> > had
> > a bad temper, and he wouldn't like Danny calling the police.
>
> > She says Danny replied that the police wouldn't do anything to her; she
> > wasn't involved. That's true, she said (she wasn't involved in storing the
> > art), but the police needn't be bothered.
>
> > M***** claims Danny then offered her $13,000 for the house, then said it
> > needed so much work the most he could give her was $10,000.
>
> > Danny maintains all M***** did was tell him no one should call the police.
>
> > The next day, someone called the police.
>
> > About 10:30 a.m., police and paramedics rushed to the house, unboarded a
> > door to get in and examined what they, too, thought was a decaying body,
> > oddly odorless. Then they poked it and figured out it wasn't. It was such
> > a weird story, the Ledger-Enquirer ran it on the front page July 4.
>
> > That's how M****** learned police had broken into the house. She was
> > perturbed. She blamed Danny.
>
> > Danny won't say he called police, but admits he told someone what he thought
> > he saw. Stan Swiney of the 911 center says the call reportedly came from a
> > Billy Hanson. (No Billy Hanson listed in the Columbus telephone directory was involved; I called.)
>
> > The 911 report said someone saw the alleged corpse through a window.
> > That's difficult: The room's dark; the window's dirty; the art's hard to see.
>
> > The artist, Dan Barfield, says it's funny Danny W**** would be frightened,
> > because the real estate agent stopped by a few months ago when Dan was
> > moving art into the house, and this piece was out on the lawn at the time.
> > The artist claims the agent told him a decayed body was found in the house once.
>
> > Danny says that's outrageous: He has never met Dan Barfield. "I would remember that,'' he says.
>
> > Danny says he just wanted to buy the house to help clean up the
> > neighborhood, where he owns other property. ``As far as I'm concerned now, they couldn't give it to me,'' he says.
>
> > Perhaps it will remain the house of scary art, where once people thought they saw a dead body.
>
> > But didn't.
> > ----
>
> > Barfield took off to live in Texas a year or so ago and I haven't heard a word from him since... hope the old cuss is doing okay out there.
>
> that's one hell of a story, Will.
>
> thanks for sharing.

I just discovered last night that the story was picked up and used for
one of those joke book paperbacks a few years ago... I never knew,
since I never read those:

http://tinyurl.com/barfield

and

http://tinyurl.com/barfield2

What's the Number for 911?: America's Wackiest 911 Calls
By Leland Gregory
Published by Andrews McMeel Publishing, 2000
ISBN 0740700324, 9780740700323

--
The Ride (Combat Zone)- by Will Dockery & Dennis Beck:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lZ3VAmNTWc

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Recent climate in your area?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aedb1e425101ef5d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 7:18 am
From: Don Stauffer

Are we talking recent WEATHER or recent climate? There is a difference!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why is Motorola USB not Blackberry USB (chargers = 5.0v, 5.9v, 350ma,
500ma)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/64eaad19632bb668?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 7:38 am
From: "J. Clarke"

Emily wrote:
> On 28 Dec 2006 13:06:44 -0800, dhoffman@talkamerica.net wrote:
>
>> You might be safe using the same voltage at a slightly different
>> amperage rate, but again you are on your own if trying this.
>
> But what I don't understand is why the amperage and voltage are
> DIFFERENT for the USB chargers.
>
> Isn't USB a standard?
>
> Why would some chargers be almost 6 volts and others be 5 volts?

The USB standard says power must be between 4.75 and 5.25 volts, with
maximum draw from a dedicated charger 1.8A. That's the highest
allowable--it doesn't mean that any given device is required to draw
that much. The manufacturer of a device will generally make the
charger the cheapest they can, which means that it will provide just
enough power to charge their device and no more.

That does not mean that particular vendors adhere to the USB standard
in the design of their charging systems--seems a stupid way to
alienate customers to me but I don't run things.

From a theoretical viewpoint if the charger delivers the rated voltage
and the same or more current then it should work. From a practical
viewpoint this assumes that the device doesn't change its current draw
depending on what it's plugged into, and since USB is a communications
protocol as well as power delivery it's reasonable to expect devices
to have the capability to make that determination.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: |AX| Re: Faking and expensive tilt-shift lens
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ef39fca12569e5d3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 8:09 am
From: "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu

Paul Furman wrote:

>> Dissolving the filter doesn't change the circuitry and firmware. The
>> camera still interprets the 2x2 sensor array as one pixel.

That's incorrect. The algorithms used to determine pixel values
actually look at MORE than a 2x2 array! They try to determine, for example,
if an edge runs through a pixel. If it does, they use other
parts of the two sides ... outside a 2x2 array ... to try to determine
all three RGB values of the pixel. The algortithms are nonlinear ..
they do not merely interpolate. They actually GUESS.

>
> The raw file has the separate bayer parts unmerged.
>
> I'm not sure how a half pixel shift would work for increasing
> resolution... perhaps you'd need to go 1-1/2 or 2-1/2 pixels.
>

1/2 pixel increments would work.

Doug McDonald

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 13 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic